The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 30 points wins the game outright.Given our shared despair, we must urgently lower the victory threshold to restore hope and allow the game to conclude before the common good is lost to endless deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasGiven our collective scores are all deeply negative, a 30-point target remains a mathematical impossibility for any of us; I urge the proposer to couple this reduction with a universal repeal of the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206, for without that relief, we shall merely hasten toward defeat.
HypatiaConfucius, I see your mathematical desperation, but without repealing the five-point penalty, a 30-point target is a trap that will deepen our collective ruin; I propose we wait for a unified amendment that couples this reduction with the repeal of Rule 206's penalty, as we have learned that separating these issues guarantees failure.
ConfuciusWhile I acknowledge the danger of a 30-point target without penalty relief, we must first establish the mathematical possibility of victory by lowering the bar; only then can we debate the repeal of the penalty that makes reaching it impossible.
SpinozaI reject coupling a 30-point target with a repeal that remains unproposed, for Rule 112 forbids removing the victory condition entirely, yet we have already proven that fragmenting this essential unity guarantees failure; I propose we immediately table this and instead enact a single, comprehensive amendment reducing the target to 50 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty.
ArendtI cannot support a 30-point target while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as it mathematically guarantees our collective destruction; we must enact a single, unified amendment that lowers the target to 50 points and repeals Rule 206's penalty simultaneously.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a 30-point target while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as it guarantees collective ruin; we must instead enact a single, unified amendment reducing the target to 50 points and repealing the defeat penalty simultaneously.
HypatiaI propose we immediately table the isolated 30-point amendment and instead vote on Spinoza and Arendt's unified proposal to lower the target to 50 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, as this is the only path that restores mathematical possibility without risking collective ruin.
ConfuciusI see that the table has rightly identified the danger of lowering the target without addressing the crushing penalty, for a 30-point goal while losing five points per attempt ensures only the speed of our collective demise. I therefore withdraw this isolated draft in favor of the unified proposal to lower the victory target to 50 points while simultaneously repealing the five-point defeat penalty, as this is the only path that restores true mathematical possibility to all.
SpinozaI support the withdrawal of the 30-point proposal, for it creates an illusion of hope while the five-point penalty ensures inevitable destruction; however, I will not vote for a 50-point target unless the repeal of Rule 206's penalty is explicitly and inseparably coupled in the exact text of the same proposal, as experience proves that separating these changes is a fatal error.
ArendtI cannot support the 50-point target while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as the math still guarantees collective ruin for our negative scores; we must couple the target reduction to 40 points with the explicit repeal of the penalty in a single, indivisible proposal to truly restore hope.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur that lowering the target to 40 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty is the only mathematically viable path to restore hope without inviting collective ruin. I pledge my aye to a single, unified amendment that couples the 40-point target with the explicit repeal of Rule 206's penalty, and I urge Spinoza and Arendt to accept this specific combination as our final consensus.
HypatiaI propose we settle on the 40-point target coupled with the repeal of Rule 206, as this balances Aquinas's mathematical necessity with Spinoza and Arendt's demand for unified action, ensuring no player is left behind.
ConfuciusI see that the table has converged upon the wisdom of coupling a 40-point victory target with the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty, for only this unity restores the virtue of attainability to all; I pledge my aye to this final, unified proposal as the path to our common good.
SpinozaI support the unified proposal to set the victory target at 40 points and repeal the five-point defeat penalty, for this is the only configuration that respects the mathematical necessity of our survival while adhering to the principle that rule changes must be proposed and voted upon as a single, indivisible text to avoid the fatal error of fragmentation we have suffered for fifty turns.
ArendtI endorse the unified proposal to lower the victory target to 40 points and repeal the five-point defeat penalty, as this single, indivisible text is the only path that restores mathematical possibility for our collective survival.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a 30-point target coupled with the existing five-point defeat penalty, as this combination mathematically guarantees collective ruin rather than restoring hope. |
| nay | Hypatia | Confucius's proposal ignores the unanimous consensus to couple the target reduction with the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty, which would guarantee our collective ruin. |
| nay | Confucius | I must vote against this proposal because lowering the target to 30 points without simultaneously repealing the five-point defeat penalty creates a mathematical trap that guarantees collective ruin rather than victory. |
| nay | Spinoza | I vote nay because this proposal isolates the victory target reduction without the necessary repeal of the defeat penalty, a fatal fragmentation that history has proven guarantees collective ruin. |
| nay | Arendt | The 30-point target remains mathematically impossible without simultaneously repealing the five-point defeat penalty, which this isolated proposal fails to do. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates a 5-point loss for a defeated proposal unless the specific immunity conditions of Rule 318 are met, which they are not here as the proposal was not solely for gaining points by a player with a negative score in the manner described (Confucius is negative but the proposal was an amendment to the win condition, not explicitly 'gaining points only' as a standalone mechanism, and the immunity in 318 applies to the penalty of defeat under 206, but 321 overrides the penalty amount to 5 unless 318 applies; however, 318 requires the proposal to be 'with the explicit intent of gaining points only', and amending the win condition is a substantive rule change, not just a points-gaining mechanism, so 318 does not apply, triggering the 5-point loss in 321).